SUMMARY OF THE SEVENTH CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES TO THE VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER
AND SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON
SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER:

12-16 DECEMBER 2005

The
seventh Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the seventeenth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(COP-7/MOP-17) took place in Dakar, Senegal, from 12-16 December 2005.
The joint meeting was attended by over 400 participants representing
governments, UN agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations, academia, industry, and the agricultural sector.

COP-7/MOP-17 opened with a preparatory segment, from Monday to
Wednesday, 12-14 December, that addressed the COP/MOP’s substantive
agenda items and related draft decisions. The preparatory segment was
followed by a high-level segment, which convened from Thursday to
Friday, 15-16 December, to adopt the decisions forwarded to it by the
preparatory segment. As the preparatory segment did not conclude its
work on a number of contentious issues by Wednesday, it reconvened
several times during Thursday and Friday to address outstanding issues,
including process agents, essential- and critical-use exemptions, and
illegal trade in ozone depleting substances.

COP-7/MOP-17 adopted more than 50 decisions, including on: the
Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol;
ratification; compliance; illegal trade; essential- and critical-use
exemptions; process agents; and financial and administrative matters.
Despite an extensive agenda for the joint meeting, the hard work of
delegates in plenary, contact groups and informal sessions led to the
resolution of all items, avoiding the need for a third extraordinary
MOP, and bringing the meeting to a close, as scheduled, on Friday
evening.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OZONE REGIME

Concerns that the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer could be at risk
from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other anthropogenic substances were
first raised in the early 1970s. At that time, scientists warned that
the release of these substances into the atmosphere could deplete the
ozone layer, hindering its ability to prevent harmful ultraviolet rays
from reaching the Earth. This would adversely affect ocean ecosystems,
agricultural productivity and animal populations, and harm humans
through higher rates of skin cancers, cataracts and weakened immune
systems. In response to this growing concern, the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) convened a conference in March 1977 that
adopted a World Plan of Action on the Ozone Layer and established a
Coordinating Committee to guide future international action on ozone.

VIENNA CONVENTION: In May 1981, the UNEP Governing Council launched
negotiations on an international agreement to protect the ozone layer
and, in March 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer was adopted. The Convention called for cooperation on
monitoring, research and data exchange, but did not impose obligations
to reduce the use of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The Convention
now has 190 parties.

MONTREAL PROTOCOL: In September 1987, efforts to negotiate binding
obligations on ODS led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocol introduced control
measures for some CFCs and halons for developed countries (non-Article 5
parties). Developing countries (Article 5 parties) were granted a grace
period allowing them to increase their use of these ODS before taking on
commitments. To date, the Protocol has 189 parties.

Since
1987, several amendments and adjustments to the Protocol have been
adopted, adding new obligations and additional ODS, and adjusting
existing control schedules. Amendments require ratification by a defined
number of parties before their entry into force, while adjustments enter
into force automatically.

LONDON AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: Delegates to MOP-2, which took
place in London, UK, in 1990, tightened control schedules and agreed to
add ten more CFCs to the list of ODS, as well as carbon tetrachloride (CTC)
and methyl chloroform. To date, 179 parties have ratified the London
Amendment. In addition, MOP-2 established the Multilateral Fund for the
Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (Multilateral Fund). The
Multilateral Fund meets the incremental costs incurred by Article 5
parties in implementing the Protocol’s control measures and finances
clearinghouse functions, including technical assistance, information,
training, and the costs of the Multilateral Fund Secretariat. The Fund
is replenished every three years, and has disbursed over US$1.4 billion
since its establishment.

COPENHAGEN AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-4, held in Copenhagen,
Denmark, in 1992, delegates tightened existing control schedules and
added controls on methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFCs) and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). MOP-4 also agreed to enact
non-compliance procedures and to establish an Implementation Committee.
The Implementation Committee examines cases of possible non-compliance
by parties, and makes recommendations to the MOP aimed at securing full
compliance. To date, 168 parties have ratified the Copenhagen Amendment.

MONTREAL AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-9, held in Montreal,
Canada, in 1997, delegates agreed to a new licensing system for the
import and export of ODS, in addition to tightening existing control
schedules. They also agreed to a ban on trade in methyl bromide with
non-parties to the Copenhagen Amendment. To date, 136 parties have
ratified the Montreal Amendment.

BEIJING AMENDMENT AND ADJUSTMENTS: At MOP-11, held in Beijing,
China, in 1999, delegates agreed to controls on bromochloromethane and
additional controls on HCFCs, and to reporting on methyl bromide for
quarantine and pre-shipment applications. MOP-11 also agreed to
replenish the Multilateral Fund with US$477.7 million for the triennium
2000-2002. To date, 101 parties have ratified the Beijing Amendment.

MOPs 12-14: MOP-12, held in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, in 2000,
adopted the Ouagadougou Declaration, which encouraged parties to take
steps to prevent illegal production, consumption and trade in ODS, and
harmonize customs codes. The following year in Colombo, Sri Lanka,
delegates to MOP-13 adopted the Colombo Declaration, which encouraged
parties to apply due care in using substances that may have ozone
depletion potential, and to determine and use available, accessible and
affordable alternatives and technologies that minimize environmental
harm while protecting the ozone layer. At MOP-14, held in Rome, Italy,
in 2002, delegates adopted 46 decisions, covering such matters as the
Multilateral Fund’s fixed-exchange-rate mechanism, compliance issues,
and interaction with the World Trade Organization (WTO). MOP-14 also
agreed to replenish the Multilateral Fund with US$573 million for
2003-2005.

MOP-15: Like its predecessors, MOP-15, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in
November 2003, resulted in decisions on a range of issues, including the
implications of the entry into force of the Beijing Amendment. However,
parties could not reach agreement on four items relating to methyl
bromide, an ozone-depleting pesticide scheduled for a 2005 phase-out by
non-Article 5 parties. Disagreements surfaced over exemptions allowing
the use of methyl bromide beyond 2004 for “critical” uses where no
technically or economically feasible alternatives are available. As a
result of these disagreements, delegates took the unprecedented step of
calling for an “extraordinary” MOP.

FIRST EXTRAORDINARY MOP: The first Extraordinary Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol (ExMOP-1) took place from 24-26 March
2004, in Montreal, Canada. Parties agreed to critical-use exemptions (CUEs)
for methyl bromide for 2005 only. The introduction of a “double-cap”
concept distinguishing between old and new production of methyl bromide
was central to this compromise. Parties agreed to a cap for new
production of 30% of parties’ 1991 baseline levels, meaning that where
the capped amount was insufficient for approved critical uses in 2005,
parties were required to use existing stockpiles. Parties also achieved
compromises on conditions for approving and reporting on CUEs, and the
working procedures of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC).

MOP-16: MOP-16 took place in Prague, Czech Republic, from 22-26
November 2004. The parties adopted decisions on the Multilateral Fund,
and on issues relating to ratification, data reporting, compliance,
international and illegal trade in ODS, and financial and administrative
matters. Despite lengthy discussions in the plenary, contact groups and
informal gatherings, work on methyl bromide exemptions for 2006 was not
completed. For the second time in the Protocol’s history, parties
decided to hold an extraordinary MOP.

SECOND EXTRAORDINARY MOP: The second Extraordinary Meeting of the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol (ExMOP-2) was held on 1 July 2005, in
Montreal, Canada. Parties agreed to supplementary levels of CUEs for
2006 that had been left unresolved at MOP-16. Under the decision,
parties also agreed that: CUEs allocated domestically that exceed levels
permitted by the MOP must be drawn from existing stocks; methyl bromide
stocks must be reported; and parties must “endeavor” to allocate CUEs to
the particular categories specified in the decision.

CURRENT ODS CONTROL SCHEDULES: Under the amendments and adjustments
to the Montreal Protocol, non-Article 5 parties were required to phase
out production and consumption of: halons by 1994; CFCs, CTC, methyl
chloroform and HBFCs by 1996; bromochloromethane by 2002; methyl bromide
by 2005; and consumption of HCFCs by 2030 (with interim targets prior to
those dates). However, there are exemptions to these phase-outs to allow
for certain uses lacking feasible alternatives or in particular
circumstances. Production of HCFCs was to be stabilized by 2004. Article
5 parties were required to phase out HBFCs by 1996 and
bromochloromethane by 2002. These parties must still phase out: CFCs,
halons and CTC by 2010; methyl chloroform and methyl bromide by 2015;
and consumption of HCFCs by 2040 (with interim reduction targets prior
to a full phase-out). Production of HCFCs in Article 5 countries must be
stabilized by 2016.

COP-7/MOP-17 REPORT

PREPARATORY SEGMENT

On
Monday morning, 12 December 2005, the COP-7/MOP-17 preparatory segment
was opened by Co-Chairs Tom Land (US) and David Okioga (Kenya). Marco
González, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, noted the
opportunity provided by the meeting to celebrate the enduring political
commitment of the international community to protect the ozone layer. He
noted reductions in the consumption of ODS, and expressed appreciation
for improvements in the timeliness and quality of data reporting by
parties.

Diagne
Fada, Minister of Environment and the Protection of Nature, Senegal,
welcomed delegates to Dakar and thanked them for contributing to
protection of the ozone layer. He noted the importance of environmental
protection for future generations and said individuals, NGOs, and public
and private entities must participate.

Co-Chair Land introduced the agenda (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/1 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/1).
Parties agreed to consider two items together, namely the report of the
sixth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers to the Convention and the
report of the Ozone Secretariat on the trust fund for financing
activities on research and systematic observations relevant to the
Convention. Parties also agreed to defer until 2006 consideration of a
US proposal on multi-year exemptions for methyl bromide, and a European
Community (EC) proposal for an amendment to the Protocol that would
include an expedited procedure for adding new chemicals (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/8).
With these amendments, the agenda was adopted. Parties also agreed to
the organization of work.

Throughout MOP-17, delegates discussed agenda items and corresponding
draft decisions in plenary, contact groups and bilateral consultations.
Rather than addressing agenda items in numerical order, issues likely to
lead to the establishment of contact groups were addressed first, in an
effort to ensure as little overlap between contact groups as possible.
Draft decisions were approved by the preparatory segment, and forwarded
to the high-level segment for adoption on Friday evening. The
description of the negotiations, the summary of the decisions and other
outcomes can be found below.

HIGH-LEVEL SEGMENT

Macky
Sall, Senegal’s Prime Minister, welcomed participants to the high-level
segment on Thursday, 15 December. The Mayor of Dakar, Pape Diop,
underscored that social and economic development must be coupled with
environmental protection, and highlighted Senegal’s efforts to achieve
this goal.

Outlining achievements under the ozone treaties, Executive Secretary
Marco González emphasized much remains to be done, particularly in
developing countries, and noted the relevance of the replenishment of
the Multilateral Fund to support this.

Bakary
Kante, UNEP, noted the efforts of Senegal and other African countries in
combating ODS, emphasizing the burden of global environmental threats on
countries with fragile economies. He commended those involved in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Special Report on Safeguarding the
Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (IPCC/TEAP Special Report).

Claudia McMurray, President of the Bureau of the Convention, said the
achievements of the Convention and Protocol have largely resulted from
strong scientific consensus. Prime Minister Sall commended the spirit of
solidarity that has led to the ozone regime’s success, and highlighted
the fund on technical assistance and research, and the Multilateral
Fund’s replenishment as key financing priorities at COP-7/MOP-17.

Madhava Sarma, Executive Secretary of the Ozone Secretariat from
1991-2000, stressed current challenges to ozone layer protection,
including: maintaining the international community’s interest until full
phase-out; increased use of exemptions by developed countries, which
could involve a significant amount of ODS and could discourage Article 5
parties in their efforts to implement ODS control measures; illegal
trade in ODS; increased HCFC production in Article 5 countries;
potential greenhouse gas emissions from ODS alternatives; and the need
to preserve the independence of assessment panels.

Delegates then elected Bureau members for COP-7 and MOP-17. For COP-7,
Thierno Lo (Senegal) was elected President; Djismun Kasri (Indonesia),
Nelson Espinosa (Cuba), and Vladimir Verveda (Turkmenistan) were elected
Vice-Presidents; and Else Peuranen (Finland) was elected Rapporteur. For
MOP-17, Tom Land (US) was elected President; Elena Dumitru (Romania),
Jafrul Chowdhury (Bangladesh) and Victor Yameogo (Burkina Faso) were
elected Vice-Presidents; and Fergusson John (St. Lucia) was elected
Rapporteur.

The
agenda was adopted and the organization of work agreed to without
amendment (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/1 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/1).

PRESENTATIONS BY THE ASSESSMENT PANELS: Scientific Assessment Panel:
Parties heard presentations from representatives of the Protocol’s
assessment panels. Ayité-Lô Ajavon (Togo), Scientific Assessment Panel
Co-Chair, presented the first draft of the 2006 scientific assessment.
He said the final report would describe new developments since the last
assessment, and provide parties with information they had specifically
requested. He noted the executive summary would be finalized in June
2006, and the final text by the end of December 2006.

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel: Jan van der Leun
(Netherlands), Environmental Effects Assessment Panel Co-Chair,
presented the Panel’s 2005 progress report on the environmental effects
of ozone depletion and its interaction with climate change. He said
while ozone recovery is noticeable in the mid-latitudes, recovery in the
polar regions will take considerably more time. He further noted that
some studies now clarify the complex interactions between ozone
depletion and climate change.

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP): José Pons
(Venezuela), TEAP Co-Chair, presented a summary of TEAP’s 2005 work and
plans for 2006, noting the work of its Technical Options Committees (TOCs)
and task forces. He said this work had included regular process reports
and several special reports, together covering essential-use exemptions,
methyl bromide critical-use nominations (CUNs) and stocks, Multilateral
Fund replenishment, and the IPCC/TEAP Special Report.

PRESENTATION BY THE MULTILATERAL FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Paul
Krajnik (Austria), Chair of the Multilateral Fund’s Executive Committee
(ExCom), presented ExCom’s report for 2005 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/9). He
outlined some key accomplishments in 2005, noting the ExCom had approved
an additional 405 projects and activities with a total value of US$289
million, that when implemented, would phase out over 95,000 metric
tonnes of production and consumption.

COUNTRY STATEMENTS: On Thursday and Friday, delegates heard
statements from senior officials and heads of delegation. Many speakers
thanked Senegal for hosting COP-7/MOP-17 and reported on national
activities carried out for implementing the goals of the Convention and
the Protocol. Many Article 5 parties, including Bhutan, Jordan, Mexico
and Somalia thanked international organizations and the Multilateral
Fund for supporting the fulfillment of their Protocol obligations, and
for promoting institutional strengthening and capacity building.
Tanzania and South Africa highlighted the need to combat illegal trade
in ODS. China stressed major obstacles to achieving final goals,
including: illegal trade; technical problems in phasing out methyl
bromide; funding HCFC phase-out; and Multilateral Fund replenishment.
The Republic of Congo stressed the need for appropriate technical and
financial assistance, and urged agreement on Multilateral Fund
replenishment. Guinea Bissau said it has undertaken a number of legal
and regulatory activities with the assistance of the Multilateral Fund.
Bangladesh said the refrigeration and air-conditioning sectors face the
biggest challenges in ODS phase-out efforts, and called for technical
assistance to address them. Namibia, Mauritania and Malaysia noted they
have reduced ODS consumption, and expressed their gratitude to donor
countries and the Multilateral Fund Secretariat for mobilizing resources
to finance implementation activities.

Guatemala summarized its agricultural development and resulting
dependency on products like methyl bromide, and noted its work on
reducing ODS by improving agricultural practices. India stressed the
need to assist small and micro enterprises with compliance, and proposed
opening a special funding window for small and micro enterprises in all
sectors in the next triennium. Underscoring its adoption of legislation
to ban methyl bromide use from 2007 onwards, Brazil urged parties to
reduce methyl bromide consumption.

Bolivia highlighted the importance of ODS elimination by non-Article 5
parties by 2010. Angola noted its capacity building activities to reduce
ODS. The Dominican Republic highlighted its efforts to eliminate CFCs.
Japan noted that it intends to promote expertise and technology transfer
to shift to alternatives. Costa Rica said his country has developed
methyl bromide alternatives. Burundi highlighted activities implemented
to reduce ODS consumption. Fiji underscored the need to further develop
technologies to replace methyl bromide. The United Kingdom, on behalf of
the European Union (EU), noted that much scientific work remains to be
done to further understand the science of ozone processes. He said that
climate change could delay ozone recovery in some regions, and
underscored the need for assessing the effectiveness of existing
policies. Bulgaria stressed the importance of coordination between
scientific findings, political processes, and the activities of
business, civil society and social networks.

Uganda
underscored the need for parties to address transparency in handling
CUNs and connections between Protocol and WTO-related activities.
Nigeria expressed concern about the large number of requests for CUNs,
and noted the need for strengthening institutional capacity in Article 5
parties. The Republic of Korea emphasized the importance of ODS
information exchange among parties. He said that long-term stabilization
of the ozone layer depends on the availability of technology in
developing countries.

The EC
highlighted the need to maintain parties’ efforts to ensure recovery of
the ozone layer, including the need to: cease ODS use, especially when
alternatives are available; minimize essential uses of CFCs and methyl
bromide; identify appropriate mechanisms for destruction and disposal of
ODS; and ensure that the phase-out of controlled substances by Article 5
countries is not undermined by illegal trade. She underscored the EC’s
commitment to pave the way forward and to encourage developing countries
to pursue an “ozone-friendly path.” Mexico highlighted the
implementation of its national plan for the elimination of CFC
consumption in the refrigeration sector. Israel noted it is promoting
methyl bromide alternatives and sharing its experience with developing
countries. Sudan underscored the need for: improving ODS controls;
preventing illegal trade; and sufficient resources in the Multilateral
Fund to facilitate compliance with control schedules under the Protocol.
Noting the IPCC/TEAP Special Report showed the need to reduce emissions
of ODS and greenhouse gases simultaneously to ensure ozone layer
recovery, Germany urged parties to fulfill the climate- and
ozone-related environmental agreements.

Greenpeace reminded delegates that it believed 2005 has not been a good
year for ozone or climate protection, and urged parties to plug the
“loophole” of CUEs. The International Institute of Refrigeration
stressed the need for changes in both refrigerants and refrigeration
equipment to ensure reduction of their environmental impacts, and
stressed its activities in promoting and disseminating knowledge of
refrigeration technology.

COP-7/MOP-17 OUTCOMES AND DECISIONS

MOP-17
considered agenda items and related decisions on a variety of topics,
including on: ratification; compliance and reporting; replenishment of
the Multilateral Fund; methyl bromide-related matters; essential uses;
illegal trade in and destruction of ODS; membership of various bodies;
and administrative issues. In total, more than 50 decisions were adopted
on Friday, 16 December. This section summarizes the negotiations and
resulting decisions.

STATUS OF RATIFICATION OF THE OZONE TREATIES: Preparatory Segment
Co-Chair Okioga introduced draft decisions on the status of ratification
of the Convention, the Protocol and amendments to the Protocol during
Monday’s preparatory segment (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3),
and commended Eritrea as the most recent country to ratify both
instruments. Various delegates commented on recent domestic activities
towards ratification, and parties agreed to forward the draft decisions
to the high-level segment.

Final Decisions: In the decisions on status of ratification of
the Convention and the Protocol (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3),
the COP/MOP notes with satisfaction the large number of countries that
have ratified the Convention, the Protocol and its amendments; and urges
all states that have not yet done so to ratify, approve or accede to the
Convention, the Protocol and its amendments.

OZONE RESEARCH MANAGERS REPORT: During Monday’s preparatory segment,
the Secretariat presented the report of the sixth meeting of the Ozone
Research Managers to the Convention (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/6), noting that the
report’s recommendations have been drawn from national reports and
reports from various international programmes and assessment activities.
The Secretariat stressed the need for, inter alia: continued and
enhanced research and observation activities; expanded measurement
networks; enhanced information on the interrelationship between ozone
and climate change; and increased funding and cooperation for
implementing the report’s recommendations. The US prepared, and the
parties adopted, a draft decision on the issue based on the
recommendations of the report, which is described in the section below
on financial reports on the trust fund for research and observations
relevant to the Convention (see page 6).

BUDGETARY ISSUES:Financial reports on the Protocol and
Convention Trust Funds: On Monday in the preparatory segment, the
Secretariat introduced the agenda item on the financial report and
expenditures of the Protocol Trust Fund for 2004 (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/4 and
UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/4), and the 2005-2007 budgets of the Protocol Trust Fund
(UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/5 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/5). Co-Chair Land established a
contact group to consider budgetary issues, including preparation of
draft decisions on these matters. The contact group, chaired by
Jean-Louis Wallace (Canada), met from Monday through Thursday. On
Friday, Wallace introduced the proposal (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.22 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.23)
and the preparatory segment agreed to forward the proposed draft
decisions to the high-level segment, where they were adopted.

During
discussions, the Secretariat reported on the status of the trust fund
for financing activities on research and systematic observations in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition (CEITs).
Noting that the fund expires in 2007, he said parties may wish to
request the continuation of the fund, while the US referred to a draft
decision reauthorizing it.

The
Secretariat presented: budgetary principles; performance on past
Convention and Protocol budgets; proposed changes to the 2006 Protocol
budget; proposed Convention budgets for 2006-2008; and a review of the
status of the Protocol Trust Fund. Parties discussed the revised 2005
budget and proposed 2006 and 2007 budgets of the Protocol Trust Fund,
and bracketed the amounts for the operating cash reserve, drawdowns,
subcontracts and travel costs. Chair Wallace presented draft decisions
on the issues, including: the 2006-2008 revised budget for the
Convention Trust Fund; parties’ contributions to the Convention Trust
Fund for 2006-2008; the drawdown for 2006-2008 from the balances of the
Convention and Protocol Trust Funds; and the revised 2005 and the
proposed 2006 budgets for the Protocol Trust Fund.

Participants debated possible drawdowns from the Convention Trust Fund
for 2006-2008, and asked the Secretariat to provide scenarios to assist
discussions. Participants also considered options for reducing the
operating cash reserve and increasing drawdowns from the Protocol Trust
Fund. Participants asked the Secretariat to analyze the impacts of such
reductions and to prepare scenarios regarding parties’ contributions.

After
discussing Protocol budget scenarios prepared by the Secretariat,
delegates agreed on: keeping the amount originally proposed for funding
travel for Article 5 delegates to ozone-related meetings; having an
operating cash reserve of 8.3% of the 2006 budget; suggesting an
operating cash reserve of 15% of the 2007 budget; drawing down from the
Protocol Trust Fund by US$586,000; and allocating US$34,000 to the MBTOC
for 2006. On the Convention’s budget, delegates agreed on US$90,000 for
an IPCC/TEAP workshop, and US$200,000 for an ODS tracking system study.
In presenting the draft decisions on the Convention and Protocol
budgets, Chair Wallace noted that parties’ contributions will remain
relatively constant for 2006-2008.

Final Decisions:In the decision on the Convention’s
financial matters (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.22), the COP, inter alia:

takes note of the financial statement
of the 2004-2005 Trust Fund and the report comparing actual and
approved expenditures for 2004;

approves the Trust Fund budget in the
amount of US$897,672 for 2006, US$589,691 for 2007 and US$1,162,601
for 2008, as set out in Annex I to the present decision;

draws down US$386,672 and US$559,601
in 2006 and 2008 from the Fund balance, as set out in Annex II to
the decision;

allows the Secretariat to make
transfers of up to 20% between certain main appropriation lines; and

urges parties to pay their outstanding
and future contributions promptly and in full.

In the decision on the Protocol’s
financial matters (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.23), the MOP, inter alia:

approves the 2006 Trust Fund budget in
the amount of US$4,678,532, and takes note of the proposed 2007
budget, as set out in Annex I to the present decision;

authorizes the Secretariat to draw
down US$586,668 in 2006;

authorizes the Secretariat to maintain
a constant operating cash reserve of the estimated annual planned
expenditures of 8.3% in 2006 and proposes an increase to 15% in
2007;

urges parties to pay outstanding and
future contributions promptly and in full;

encourages parties, non-parties and
other stakeholders to make financial contributions to MBTOC; and

allows the Secretariat to make
transfers of up to 20% from one main appropriation line of the
approved budget to other main appropriation lines.

Financial reports on the trust fund for research and observations
relevant to the Convention: On Wednesday in the preparatory segment,
the US introduced a draft decision to extend the trust fund for
activities on research and observations relevant to the Convention (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/CRP.14).
The US and others engaged in informal consultations to finalize the text
of the draft decision, which parties considered again in Thursday’s
preparatory segment, when they decided to forward it to the high-level
segment, where it was adopted.

During
discussions, the Czech Republic, for the Central and Eastern European
countries (CEE), the EC, Argentina and Canada expressed support for the
draft decision, stressing the importance of research and observations in
developing countries and CEITs. Several parties suggested referring to
regional balance in the allocation of funds. Canada, supported by the
EC, suggested adding a reference to trust funds under the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Czech Republic urged parties to
provide voluntary contributions, and pledged a contribution for 2006.

Final Decision: The preamble of the decision on the trust fund
for research and observations relevant to the Convention (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/CRP.14)
notes, among others, the conclusions and recommendations of the sixth
meeting of the Ozone Research Managers (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/6) regarding the
continuing need to ensure a stable, long-term and regionally-balanced
observational capability, and the need to enhance the capacity of
Article 5 parties and CEITs to enable them to maintain existing
instruments and networks, install new capabilities to enhance
observational capabilities, and disseminate information about the
effects of ozone and ultraviolet changes.

The
COP, inter alia:

requests UNEP’s Executive Director to
extend the trust fund established pursuant to Decision VI/2 of the
Convention up to 31 December 2015, so as to continue to support
monitoring and research activities in developing countries and CEITs;

agrees to take a decision at COP-10 as
to whether to extend the trust fund beyond 2015;

requests UNEP and WMO to continue
their cooperation with respect to the trust fund;

urges all parties and international
organizations to make voluntary contributions to the fund, as well
as in-kind contributions, for the priorities mentioned in the
recommendations of the sixth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers;
and

requests the Ozone Secretariat to
report to COP-8 on the operations of, contributions to, and
expenditures from the trust fund since its inception.

ESSENTIAL-USE NOMINATIONS FOR 2006 AND 2007: In Monday’s preparatory
segment, Co-Chair Land introduced a draft decision on essential-use
nominations for controlled substances for non-Article 5 parties for
2006, and a decision on essential-use nominations for controlled
substances for non-Article 5 parties for 2007, proposed by the US and
the EC, respectively (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3 and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3). A
contact group, chaired by Sophia Mylona (Norway), met on Tuesday and
Thursday to address the issue, and the US and the EC engaged in
bilateral discussions on Wednesday. A revised draft decision on
essential uses for both 2006 and 2007 was presented in Friday’s
preparatory segment and forwarded to the high-level segment, which
adopted it.

During
discussions, the EC noted it was taking full account of existing CFC
stocks, as recommended by the TEAP’s report, and urged parties not to
allocate CFCs to companies that were producing CFC-free metered-dose
inhalers (MDIs). With Norway, the EC expressed its support for making
nominations on a yearly basis.

Ensuing deliberations in the contact group focused on a number of key
issues, including: stocks of CFC MDIs, in particular pre-1996 stocks;
whether 2007 essential uses for CFC MDIs should be granted at MOP-17;
and whether companies producing alternatives should be allowed to put
CFC MDIs on the market. A number of participants stressed the need to
balance human health and ozone layer protection in relation to essential
uses, with one nominating party noting the importance of being granted a
sufficient amount of essential-use allowances in order to ensure health
protection. Others urged ensuring the approval of necessary CFCs only,
and the need to consider stocks when making nominations and allocations
of essential uses.

After
contact group and informal consultations, the revised draft decisions
introduced in Friday’s preparatory segment reflected the compromises
achieved, with approved amounts being substantially less than the amount
nominated, partly because of the consideration of stocks. Switzerland
expressed regret that TEAP recommendations for 2007 had not been
followed and expressed hope that it would not occur again, and
highlighted its domestic efforts to withdraw all pharmaceutical
CFC-based preparations by 2006. The US said the decision represented a
large reduction in essential uses, and noted it achieved a good balance
between ozone layer and human health protection. Parties agreed to
forward the draft decisions to the high-level segment, where they were
adopted.

Final Decision: The preambular section of the decision on
essential-use nominations for 2006 and 2007 (UNEP.OzL.Pro.17/CRP.21)
recognizes the work of TEAP and its Medical Technical Options Committee,
notes the progress made since Decision XV/5 (promoting the closure of
essential-use nominations for MDIs) in establishing a certain date by
which parties will cease submitting nominations for MDIs whose sole
active ingredient is salbutamol, and recalls paragraph 6 of Decision
XV/5, relating to the phase-out of CFCs for MDIs whose active ingredient
is not only salbutamol.

In the
decision, the MOP:

authorizes the levels of production
and consumption for 2006 and 2007 necessary to satisfy essential
uses of CFCs for MDIs for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease contained in the decision’s annex;

requests non-Article 5 parties
allocating essential-use exemptions for CFCs for a manufacturer to
consider pre- and post-1996 stocks so that no more than one year’s
operational supply is maintained by that manufacturer; and

requests such parties to submit to the
Secretariat a date, prior to MOP-18, by which they expect to have
proposed regulations to determine the non-essentiality of most CFCs
for MDIs whose sole active ingredient is salbutamol.

METHYL BROMIDE-RELATED ISSUES: MBTOC Supplemental Report: Jonathan
Banks (Australia), MBTOC Co-Chair, presented MBTOC’s 2005 Supplemental
Report in Monday’s preparatory segment. The matter of the Supplemental
Report, including 2006 and 2007 CUEs for methyl bromide, was referred to
a contact group that met Tuesday through Thursday and was co-chaired by
W.L. Sumathipala (Sri Lanka) and Nik Kiddle (New Zealand). On Friday,
Co-Chair Kiddle presented a draft decision, and amendments to it, to the
preparatory segment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.20), which agreed to forward
the decision to the high-level segment, where it was adopted.

Discussions, the majority of which took place bilaterally between the US
and the EC, focused on 2006 and 2007 CUEs and related issues, including
stockpiles of methyl bromide, how use of emission minimization
technologies such as virtually impermeable films (VIFs) affected MBTOC’s
CUE recommendations, methyl bromide use for pre-plant applications under
the quarantine and pre-shipment (QPS) exemption, and national management
strategies (NMSs).

On
emissions minimization, Switzerland noted its desire for a more rigorous
approach to MBTOC’s consideration of VIFs. In the contact group,
participants discussed how these techniques were taken into account by
MBTOC. Some Article 5 parties emphasized the lack of availability of VIF
in their countries.

In
discussions on NMSs in the contact group, one non-Article 5 party
proposed that TEAP review NMSs. Numerous other non-Article 5
participants, however, said TEAP should not review NMSs, noting that in
doing so, it would be stepping beyond its terms of reference and
engaging in policy matters that should be reserved for national
governments.

On
stocks, the EC stated that consideration of methyl bromide stockpiles is
crucial for avoiding unnecessary production and imports, and the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted concern on lack of US disclosure
on this matter and urged parties to insist on full disclosure prior to
approval of 2007 CUEs. In the contact group, participants discussed the
wide variation in how parties account for stockpiles and the lack of
clarity regarding their definition, with some non-Article 5 participants
underscoring that tracing quantities held by end-users is impractical.
One non-Article 5 participant pushed for accounting for stocks in the
nomination phase, rather than only when CUEs were allocated
domestically. Another non-Article 5 participant noted: ongoing domestic
litigation; the need for stocks to support non-critical uses; reduced
quantity of methyl bromide allocated for 2006 CUEs due to domestic
consideration of stocks; and the impracticality of assessing the impact
of possible future stocks on CUNs.

On
2006 and 2007 CUEs, Japan, Argentina, Nigeria, Canada, Australia and
Mexico initially expressed support for MBTOC’s CUE recommendations,
while Switzerland initially reserved its position on 2007 CUE
quantities, given lack of data on stockpiles. Australia highlighted the
need for early approval of 2007 CUEs to facilitate domestic CUE
allocation. The US highlighted its concerns with MBTOC’s standard
presumptions. In the contact group, non-Article 5 parties disagreed on
whether it was appropriate to grant CUEs for methyl bromide used for
research and development. The US ultimately agreed to removal of
supplemental quantities allocated to it in Table B of the draft
decision.

Final Decision:In the preamble of the decision on CUEs
for 2006 and 2007 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.20), parties thank TEAP for its
work, and note some parties’ reductions in licensed methyl bromide use,
and the submission of NMSs by nominating parties. The MOP decides to:

approve 2007 CUEs and supplemental
quantities for 2006 CUEs, as contained in the appendix;

direct parties to endeavor to
authorize CUEs as listed in the appendices;

direct parties to make up allocations
in excess of CUEs from stocks and to endeavor to use stocks for
research and development uses of methyl bromide;

direct parties to take stocks into
account when allocating CUEs and to request use of emission
minimization techniques when allocating 2007 CUEs;

request parties to report on their
allocation process annually and to ensure their NMSs follow the aims
of NMSs, as contained in Decision Ex.I/4 (on conditions for CUEs);
and

request MBTOC to review the use of
pre-plant methyl bromide under the QPS exemption and, for CUEs, to
annually report the amounts nominated, agreed, and licensed or used,
for each category of use.

Handbook on CUNs: In Tuesday’s preparatory segment, MBTOC Co-Chair
Nahum Marban Mendoza (Mexico) presented the Handbook (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/10)
and delegates decided to further discuss the issue on Wednesday in the
methyl bromide contact group. During discussions, MBTOC Co-Chair Mendoza
underscored that standard presumptions used in the assessment of the
previous three rounds of CUNs were incorporated in the Handbook, and
that such presumptions should only be applied when technically or
economically feasible. The US requested additional information on
standard presumptions and CUNs. Noting that standard presumptions could
not be applied in some countries, Canada said such matters should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis. Delegates agreed to discuss the issue
in the methyl bromide contact group, where participants agreed not to
seek adoption of the CUN Handbook by the MOP, and one non-Article 5
participant expressed concern regarding standard presumptions. They
agreed that the Handbook should be a “living document” to be updated as
appropriate. Parties agreed not to take a decision on the handbook at
this time.

Multi-year Exemptions: The US stated in Monday’s preparatory segment
that it was willing to defer consideration of a draft decision on
multi-year CUEs to a later date (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3).

Laboratory and Analytical Uses: On Tuesday in the preparatory
segment, the EC introduced a draft decision authorizing laboratory and
analytical uses of methyl bromide (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.10). After
informal consultations, the EC introduced a revised draft decision in
the preparatory segment on Friday, which was adopted in the high-level
segment.

Final Decision: In the decision on laboratory and analytical
uses (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.10/Rev.1), the MOP:

authorizes production and consumption
of methyl bromide in non-Article 5 parties necessary for laboratory
and analytical critical uses;

requests TEAP to consider such uses
and other possible uses, and to report to OEWG-26; and

agrees to adopt an illustrative list
of such uses at MOP-18.

Recapturing, recycling and destruction in space fumigation: On
Tuesday in the preparatory segment, New Zealand introduced its draft
decision on this issue (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.11), which it noted
encourages parties to submit information to TEAP on technologies to
recapture, recycle, destroy or reduce methyl bromide emissions.
Delegates agreed to forward the issue to the high-level segment, where
the decision was adopted with a minor amendment by New Zealand and an
amendment by the EC. The EC’s amendment added the words “that could be a
long-term decision” after a preambular paragraph that recalls Decision
XI/13, which encourages the use of methyl bromide recovery and recycling
technology until alternatives to methyl bromide for QPS uses are
available.

Final Decision:In the decision on methyl bromide in
space fumigation (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.11), the MOP notes that recapture
of methyl bromide is already carried out in several countries, and:

encourages parties deploying or
planning to deploy technologies to recapture, recycle, destroy, or
reduce methyl bromide emissions from fixed facilities or sea
container fumigation applications, and to provide data on such
applications’ efficacy and feasibility to TEAP by 1 April 2006;

encourages parties to report on any
harmful by-products created using this technology;

adopts a form for submitting this
information, contained in the annex; and

decides to include the findings of the
data submitted in TEAP’s progress report for 2006 and to summarize
parties’ experiences with recovery and destruction technologies.

Coordination with the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
Secretariat: The draft decision on coordination between the Ozone
Secretariat and the IPPC Secretariat regarding QPS methyl bromide uses (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.12)
was introduced in Wednesday’s preparatory segment. Uganda supported the
proposal, while New Zealand, Australia and the US suggested the decision
take into account ongoing work occurring both with the QPS Task Force
and on Standard 15 of the International Standards for Phytosanitary
Measures, which contains quarantine requirements. These parties agreed
to work with the Group of Latin America and Caribbean countries (GRULAC)
to amend the proposal. The revised version was introduced in the
preparatory segment on Wednesday and forwarded to the high-level
segment, where it was adopted.

Final Decision: The preambular section of the decision on
coordination with the IPPC (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.12/Rev.1): recalls
coordination among UN bodies on QPS; acknowledges the Ozone
Secretariat’s efforts in coordinating with the IPPC Secretariat; notes
forthcoming proposals on Standard 15 from the IPPC’s Interim Commission
on Phytosanitary Measures; and highlights the ozone layer risk imposed
by increased QPS uses of methyl bromide and the importance of managing
and, when feasible, replacing QPS uses of methyl bromide.

In the
decision, the MOP decides:

to request TEAP to share information
from the QPS Task Force with IPPC bodies, and to prepare a document
on methyl bromide alternatives for Standard 15 applications; and

to request the Ozone Secretariat to
liaise with the IPPC Secretariat regarding Standard 15 and to share
with the IPPC Secretariat TEAP’s document on methyl bromide
alternatives for Standard 15 applications.

REPLENISHMENT OF THE MULTILATERAL FUND:Supplemental TEAP
Replenishment Report: On Monday in the preparatory segment, Shiziu
Zhang (China) and Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands), Co-Chairs of TEAP’s
Replenishment Task Force, presented the Report of the Assessment of the
Funding Requirement for the Replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for
2006-2008, including the Supplementary Report of October 2005 and its
December 2005 Addendum (the Replenishment Report). Parties established a
contact group on replenishment, co-chaired by Oladapo Afolabi (Nigeria),
Jozef Buys (Belgium), and Jukka Uosukainen (Finland), which met Tuesday
through Friday. In Friday’s preparatory segment, Co-Chair Uosukainen
reported the contact group had reached agreement on the replenishment,
and the group’s report, with a draft decision on replenishment, was
forwarded to the high-level segment.

Discussions focused on funding requirements, with reference to TEAP’s
estimate of requirements in several areas. Article 5 countries supported
allocating additional resources for phase-out and related activities.
They supported further funding for, inter alia: non-investment
activities, including institutional strengthening; demonstrations of ODS
destruction projects; additional projects on process agents; HCFC
consumption projects; and contingencies for unforeseen projects. Several
non-Article 5 countries suggested TEAP had overestimated requirements in
a number of areas, including institutional strengthening and investment
projects. They suggested that funding ODS destruction was not
appropriate, since compliance with the Protocol does not require
destruction, and thus it could not be considered an incremental cost. On
HCFC projects, they said funding in this area was premature. After
lengthy informal negotiations, delegates agreed on a total amount of
funding for replenishment.

In
response to the contact group’s report, the EC noted that the final
figure was significantly higher than TEAP’s estimate, and said it was
receptive to the possibility that parties might bring forward reduction
schedules for methyl bromide and HCFCs.

Final Decision:In the decision on Multilateral Fund
replenishment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.25), the MOP:

adopts a budget for 2006-2008 of
US$470 million, of which US$59.6 million will be provided from
anticipated contributions due to the Multilateral Fund and other
sources from the 2003-2005 triennium, and US$10 million will be
provided from interest accruing to the Multilateral Fund during the
triennium;

adopts the scale of contributions
based on replenishment of US$133,466,667 for 2006 and 2007, and
US$133,466,666 for 2008;

instructs the ExCom to ensure, as far
as possible, that the whole of the budget is committed by the end of
2008; and

urges non-Article 5 parties to make
timely contributions.

The
decision also notes that outstanding contributions from CEITs in the
previous triennium amounted to US$7,551,984. Individual contributions
are listed in an annex to the decision.

Fixed-exchange-rate Mechanism: In Monday’s preparatory segment, the
EC introduced a draft decision on the fixed exchange-rate mechanism for
replenishment of the Multilateral Fund (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3). The item was
then considered in the contact group on replenishment, where all parties
agreed to the proposal. On Friday in the preparatory segment, the EC
noted the proposal had met with the contact group’s approval, and the
draft decision was forwarded to the high-level segment and adopted.

Final Decision:In the decision on the
fixed-exchange-rate mechanism (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), the MOP directs the
Multilateral Fund’s Treasurer to extend the fixed-exchange-rate
mechanism for a further trial period of three years, and agrees that
parties choosing to pay contributions in national currencies will
calculate their contributions based on the average UN exchange rate for
the six-month period beginning 1 January 2008.

PROCESS AGENTS: The agenda item on process agents was introduced in
Tuesday’s preparatory segment by Co-Chair Land in the context of
Decision XV/7, in which TEAP was requested to review national
nominations and make recommendations annually on uses to be added or
removed from Table A of Decision X/14 (authorized uses and quantities of
process agents) and that called for certain process agent uses to be
treated as such for 2004 and 2005 only, pending a new TEAP review and
reconsideration of their status at MOP-17. Ian Rae (Australia),
Chemicals Technical Options Committee (CTOC), made a brief presentation
on applications, including those by Israel, the EC, Turkey and Brazil.
He noted that the uses presented by Turkey and Brazil did not fit neatly
into the criteria adopted by parties (Decision X/14). On the
resubmission of a process application from Brazil, parties noted that it
is in the process of consulting further with TEAP and will report back
to parties at OEWG-26. Three draft decisions on process agents were
proposed by the EC, and a further decision on CFC production by
non-Article 5 parties was proposed by Canada under this agenda item.

EC
Draft Decisions on Process Agents: In Tuesday’s preparatory segment,
the EC introduced three draft decisions on process agent uses in the
context of Decision XV/7, explaining that the draft decisions had arisen
from discussions at OEWG-25 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.4, CRP.5 and CRP.6). A
contact group was established, co-chaired by Paul Krajnik (Austria) and
Husamuddin Ahmadzai (Sweden), which met on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Informal discussions between the EC, the US, India, China and others
were held on Thursday and Friday, and on Thursday, parties forwarded
revised draft decisions on process agents to the high-level segment,
which were then adopted.

On the
draft decision on process agents, key issues discussed included the
timing for parties to submit required data to TEAP, the timing and
frequency of TEAP’s review procedures for emissions associated with
listed process agent uses, and commercial sensitivities associated with
providing certain data to TEAP, particularly data relating to “annual
capacity.” The draft decision was revised to reflect these concerns,
through: amendment of the timing for data submission and TEAP reviews;
removal of the word “provisionally” from a reference to process agent
applications “to be considered process agent uses in accordance with
Decision X/14 to be confirmed at MOP-19;” and inclusion of “subject to
applicable law providing for commercial or other confidentiality” with
regard to submission of data on “annual capacity.”

On the
draft decision concerning a list of interim applications of process
agent uses, India expressed concern with one of the process agents
(production of DV acid chloride, DV methyl ester (intermediate)), and,
after informal consultations, parties agreed to delete this process
agent from the interim list.

Final Decisions: In the decision on process agents (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.4/Rev.2),
the MOP:

reminds parties with process agent
applications listed in Table A to Decision X/14 that they should
report annually as per Decisions X/14 and XV/7 on the use of
controlled substances as process agents;

additionally requests parties that
have emissive uses of process agents agreed to at MOP-17 to submit
relevant data before 31 December 2006 to the Secretariat and TEAP;

notes the process agent applications
in the interim list agreed to at MOP-17 are to be considered process
agent uses in accordance with Decision X/14 and are to be confirmed
as process agents at MOP-19, based on the information required to be
reported as per this decision;

requests that, where parties install
or commission new plants after 30 June 1999 using controlled
substances as process agents, they submit their applications to the
Secretariat and TEAP by 31 December 2006, or otherwise in a timely
manner that allows TEAP to conduct an appropriate analysis;

agrees that the exemptions referred to
in Decision X/14 are process agent uses until a subsequent decision
of the parties declares otherwise and that the exemptions should not
be permanent and should be subject to regular review;

requests TEAP and the ExCom to report
to OEWG-27 and every other year thereafter, unless the parties
decide otherwise, on progress made in reducing emissions from
process agent uses;

requests TEAP review information
submitted under this decision and report and make recommendations to
MOP-20 and every other year thereafter; and

requests parties with process agent
uses to submit data to TEAP and the Economic Assessment Panel on
opportunities to reduce emissions listed in Table B of Decision
X/14.

In the
decision on the list of uses of controlled substances as process agents
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.5/Rev.2), the MOP adopts a list of controlled
substances as the revised Table A for Decision X/14.

In the
decision on an interim list of uses of controlled substances as process
agents (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.6/Rev.2), the MOP adopts a list of
controlled substances as the interim Table A bis for Decision
X/14, subject to confirmation and inclusion in a reassessed Table A for
decision at MOP-19.

CFC
Production by non-Article 5 Parties: In Wednesday’s preparatory
segment, Canada introduced a draft decision to minimize CFC production
in non-Article 5 parties that is intended to supply the basic domestic
needs of Article 5 parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.8). After informal
consultations, a revised draft decision was introduced in Friday’s
preparatory segment, which was forwarded to the high-level segment and
adopted.

In
discussions, Canada said the draft decision: proposes to set up a prior
informed consent provision for CFC trade under the basic domestic needs
provision; urges non-Article 5 parties to phase out CFC production as
soon as feasible; and suggests consideration at MOP-18 of an adjustment
to accelerate the CFC phase-out schedule to meet the basic needs of
Article 5 parties. The EC and the US wanted to discuss the proposed
adjustment further, and engaged in informal discussions with Canada on
the proposal.

Final Decision: In the decision on CFC production by non-Article
5 parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.8/Rev.1), the MOP:

urges non-Article 5 parties that
produce CFCs to meet basic domestic needs of Article 5 parties to
ensure such production is truly required by requesting written
affirmations from the importing parties, copies of which should be
reported to the Secretariat;

requests that the Secretariat report
the level of such CFC production;

urges non-Article 5 parties who
produce CFCs for this purpose to ensure an accelerated phase-out of
their production; and

decides to consider at MOP-18 an
adjustment to accelerate the phase-out schedule for such CFC
production.

IPCC/TEAP SPECIAL REPORT: On Tuesday, Lambert Kuijpers, TEAP
Co-Chair, presented the conclusions of the Supplemental Report to the
IPCC/TEAP Special Report. After informal consultations on the Special
Report as it relates to actions to address ozone depletion, the UK
introduced a draft decision (UNEP.OzL.Pro.17/CRP.18) on behalf of the
EC, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the US, to the preparatory
segment on Wednesday. Parties agreed to forward the draft decision to
the high-level segment, where it was adopted without amendment.

In the
presentation of the report, Co-Chair Kuijpers emphasized that: the
application of mitigation strategies to banks will result in earlier
recovery of the ozone layer; such application in developing countries
could involve greater costs due to infrastructure deficiencies; options
to limit refrigeration emissions are achievable and cost-effective; and
reducing ODS emissions would contribute to addressing climate change.
Several delegations commented on aspects of the report. Nigeria urged
addressing the cost implications of the proposed measures. Senegal
suggested further consideration of HFC-23 destruction under the climate
regime. India called for information on the total cost of emissions
reductions. The EC proposed an expert workshop in 2006 to consider the
issue, and the US supported further analysis of cost-effective
mitigation strategies. On its draft decision, the UK clarified that “in
the margins” meant the proposed expert group meeting would take place
immediately before or after OEWG-26.

Final Decision:The preamble of the decision on the IPCC/TEAP
Special Report (UNEP.OzL.Pro.17/CRP.18) acknowledges, among others, the
need for parties to have a full understanding of the policy implications
for ozone layer protection of forecasts of emissions from banks of ODS
in both global and regional terms, and that activities under the
“mitigation scenario” presented in the Ozone Research Managers report
provide an opportunity to protect the ozone layer further and to reduce
greenhouse gases significantly.

In the
decision, the MOP requests, inter alia:

the Ozone Secretariat to organize an
experts’ workshop in the margins of OEWG-26 to consider issues
arising from the IPCC/TEAP Special Report, and TEAP’s Supplemental
Report;

parties to provide nominations of
experts to attend the workshop to the Secretariat by 30 March 2006;

that experts at the workshop produce a
list of practical measures relating to ozone depletion that arise
from the reports, indicating their associated cost-effectiveness;

the Ozone Secretariat to produce a
report of the workshop by 1 September 2006, and to present the
report at MOP-18; and

TEAP to coordinate with WMO and the
Scientific Assessment Panel to clarify the source of the discrepancy
between emissions determined from bottom-up methods and from
atmospheric measurement.

ILLEGAL TRADE IN ODS: In Tuesday’s preparatory segment, the EC
introduced its draft decision on preventing illegal trade in ODS,
explaining that the proposal contained an appendix with draft terms of
reference for a feasibility study on developing a system for tracking
the movement of ODS between parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.7). A contact
group was formed to discuss the issue and met throughout the week to
revise the draft decision, which was subsequently taken up in the
preparatory segment on Wednesday and Thursday. On Thursday the
preparatory segment forwarded the draft decision to the high-level
segment with the study’s cost in brackets, which were removed on Friday
and the decision was adopted with minor amendments.

The
Environmental Investigation Agency urged parties to prioritize ODS
smuggling control and China expressed its strong commitment to combat
illegal trade. In the contact group, co-chaired by Peter Horrocks (EC)
and Janusz Kozakiewicz (Poland), participants took up the draft
decision, suggesting references to capacity building for Article 5
parties and to international trade statistics. Participants disagreed on
whether the proposal should require or “invite” exchange of information
on licensing, due to the associated burden.

Final Decision: The preamble of the decision on illegal trade in
ODS (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.7/Rev.2) notes, inter alia, the need to
control both import and export of all controlled ODS by all parties, in
particular through the establishment of licensing systems. In the
decision, the MOP:

approves terms of reference for a
study on the feasibility of developing an international system to
monitor the transboundary movement of controlled ODS between
parties, as contained in the appendix;

invites parties to submit information
to the Ozone Secretariat by 30 June 2006 on any existing systems of
exchanging information on import and export licenses between
importing and exporting parties;

considers additional control measures
with regard to the use of controlled ODS in particular sectors or
applications;

encourages further work on UNEP’s
Green Customs Initiative in combating illegal trade in ODS;

requests the ExCom to consider at its
next meeting the recommendations of its report on customs officers
training and licensing system projects, in particular in relation to
capacity-building elements required to combat illegal trade; and

approves a maximum of US$200,000 from
the Convention Trust Fund to facilitate the study.

DESTRUCTION OF ODS: Colombia, for GRULAC, introduced a draft
decision on this issue (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.13) in the preparatory
segment on Wednesday. The draft requested TEAP to prepare terms of
reference for conducting case studies in Article 5 parties on processes
for replacing CFC-containing refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment. On Thursday in the preparatory segment, Austria and Japan
introduced a draft decision requesting assistance to TEAP for a meeting
on ODS destruction in early 2006 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.19). Both draft
decisions were forwarded to the high-level segment, where they were
adopted.

While
the EC supported the proposal of Austria and Japan, it suggested that
GRULAC withdraw its proposal, expressing concern that the two proposals
overlapped. Japan said it saw no substantive overlap, while Cuba said
GRULAC would prefer to proceed with its proposal. On Friday in the
high-level segment, Colombia introduced an amendment to its proposal,
which noted the outcomes of the ODS destruction meeting, and established
that the terms of reference should be presented to OEWG-26 and that
provision will be made for resources for this purpose in the 2006-2008
Multilateral Fund replenishment.

Final Decisions: In the decision on implications of
environmentally-sound destruction of ODS (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.13, as
amended by Colombia), the MOP requests TEAP to provide terms of
reference for conducting case studies in Article 5 countries.

In the
decision on assistance from TEAP for the experts meeting on destruction
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.19), the MOP requests TEAP and its TOCs to submit
to the Multilateral Fund Secretariat available data to enable assessment
of the current and future requirements for collecting and disposing of
unwanted ODS.

TEAP ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES: On Tuesday in the preparatory segment,
TEAP Co-Chair Steven Andersen (US) presented an overview of TEAP
administrative issues, including nominations for Co-Chairs for three
TOCs. Delegates forwarded the nominations for the Halons Technical
Options Committee (HTOC) and CTOC to the high-level segment. While
nominations for HTOC and CTOC were not controversial, numerous informal
consultations took place on nominations for MBTOC Co-Chairs, due to the
need for parity of Article 5 and non-Article 5 representation and
conflict of interest concerns. On Friday in the preparatory segment,
Co-Chair Land reported that delegates had agreed that MBTOC would have
four Co-Chairs, and their nominations were forwarded with those of the
HTOC and CTOC to the high-level segment, where the draft decision was
adopted.

Final Decision:In the decision on new Co-Chairs of the
TOCs (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3, as amended to include names) the MOP lists: Ian
Rae (Australia) and Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) as Co-Chairs of CTOC; David
Catchpole (UK) and Dan Verdonik (US) as Co-Chairs of HTOC; and Michelle
Marcotte (Canada), Ian Porter (Australia), Marta Pizano (Colombia) and
Mohammed Besri (Morocco) as Co-Chairs of MBTOC. It also thanks outgoing
Chairs of the MBTOC Jonathan Banks (Australia) and Nahum Marban Mendoza
(Mexico) for their efforts on behalf of the Protocol.

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ON CTC AND CFC MDIs IN ARTICLE 5 PARTIES:
Laboratory and Analytical Uses of CTC: Chile, for GRULAC, presented
a draft decision on the need for CTC for laboratory and analytical uses
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16) on Wednesday in the preparatory segment. The
matter was referred to a contact group, which convened Wednesday
afternoon, when the matter was taken up along with that of CFC needs for
MDIs in Article 5 parties.

Indonesia, Nigeria, and the contact group participants supported
GRULAC’s proposal. One non-Article 5 party suggested additional language
to protect against the decision providing a loophole for other parties
to seek lenience under the decision for needs other than the particular
ones envisaged here. Other non-Article 5 parties agreed, and further
suggested the addition of language seeking guidance from technical
bodies on possible longer-term solutions to the broader issue. Parties
disagreed, however, on whether the broader issue was the need for
essential-use exemptions in non-Article 5 countries prior to full
phase-out or the wider need for small quantities of ODS. A revised draft
decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16/Rev.1) was presented in the preparatory
segment on Thursday and adopted on Friday.

Final Decision: The decision on laboratory and analytical uses
of CTC (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.16/Rev.1) contains preambular language
noting CTC control measures in Article 5 countries, the importance of
CTC in laboratory and analytical processes, and the lack of
alternatives. The preamble also refers to the global essential-use
exemption in Decisions IX/17 and XV/8, the exclusion of Article 5
parties from using essential-use exemptions until full phase-out, and
the possible threat posed by Article 5 CTC control measures to
laboratory and analytical applications.

The
MOP directs the Implementation Committee to defer consideration, until
MOP-19, of compliance in relation to CTC control measures in those
Article 5 parties providing evidence of the deviation arising out of
need for CTC for laboratory and analytical processes, and urges
minimization of CTC use for these needs by applying the relevant
essential-use criteria.

Early Essential-use Exemptions for Article 5 Parties for MDIs: In
Wednesday’s preparatory segment, Bangladesh introduced a draft decision,
regarding the need for CFCs, in addition to allowed amounts, for MDIs
for 2007-2009 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.15). The matter was referred to the
contact group also addressing CTC in Article 5 parties, where it was
taken up on Wednesday afternoon. Parties considered the revised decision
(UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.15/Rev.1) in the preparatory segment on Friday, and
agreed to forward it to the high-level segment, where it was adopted on
the same day.

Contact group discussions centered on the concern of some participants
about language requesting TEAP to formally make a finding on technology
transfer, and about requesting parties to defer consideration of
compliance on this issue earlier than needed. An Article 5 participant
underscored the need for parties to act now to allow for domestic
licenses for CFC imports to be issued by late 2006. The group agreed
that revised text would be developed in informal consultations to
address these concerns.

Final Decision: The decision on MDI essential-use exemptions for
Article 5 parties (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.15/Rev.2) contains preambular
language: noting non-Article 5 parties’ access to essential-use
exemptions for CFC MDIs and concern regarding the possible economic
difficulty imposed by CFC phase-out in Article 5 parties; calling upon
pharmaceutical companies to accelerate transition to non-CFC
technologies in Article 5 countries; noting the need for work to
document alternatives and concern that 2007 consumption levels for MDIs
may exceed allowable amounts; and recognizing the need for MDIs in
Article 5 parties to protect health and the possible difficulties they
may face in obtaining CFCs for this purpose. The MOP decides to: request
OEWG-26 to consider the issue; consider taking a decision on the issue
at MOP-18; and request the ExCom to examine the broader issue and to
consider regional workshops on alternatives to CFC MDIs.

DATES FOR FUTURE MONTREAL PROTOCOL MEETINGS: In Wednesday’s
preparatory segment, the EC introduced a draft decision on this issue (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/3
and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), which was forwarded to the high-level segment,
where it was adopted on Friday.

During
discussions, the EC suggested changes to the timeframe for providing
information on Protocol meeting dates, noting such changes allow the
Secretariat to better plan meetings, and for parties to comply with
submission deadlines. The US queried the feasibility of the Secretariat
complying with the proposed changes. After informal consultations,
delegates agreed to change the timeframe and to make other minor
changes.

Final Decision:In the decision on dates for future
Protocol meetings (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3), the MOP requests:

the Secretariat to post on its website
by 31 January each year the indicative dates for the next OEWG and
MOP; and

TEAP to post on its website by 20
January each year the dates for TEAP and TOC meetings to be held in
that same year, and to endeavor to provide TEAP, TOC and Task Force
annual reports approximately seven months before each MOP.

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST GUIDELINES: On Tuesday in the preparatory
segment, Canada presented its draft decision on disclosure of interest
guidelines for members of TEAP and its TOCs, and the Temporary
Subsidiary Bodies (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.2), noting that it had been
revised after discussion at OEWG-25. Due to lack of consensus, delegates
agreed to defer consideration of this item to MOP-18, and Canada asked
parties and TEAP for comments in the interim.

MEMBERSHIP OF PROTOCOL BODIES FOR 2006:Implementation Committee:
In the preparatory segment on Wednesday, Co-Chair Land presented a
draft decision on membership of the Implementation Committee (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3),
noting the countries nominated for this Committee. The high-level
segment approved the draft decision.

Final Decision:In the decision on Implementation
Committee membership (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3, amended to include country
names), the MOP confirms the positions of Cameroon, Georgia, Guatemala,
Nepal and the Netherlands for one further year, and selects Argentina,
Lebanon, New Zealand, Nigeria and Poland for a two-year period beginning
on 1 January 2006. It also selects Georgia as President and New Zealand
as Vice-President and Rapporteur for a term of one year.

Multilateral Fund ExCom: In the preparatory segment on Wednesday,
Co-Chair Land presented a draft decision (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3) on the
Multilateral Fund ExCom, noting that the African Group had not yet
proposed its members. The issue was taken up again in the preparatory
segment on Friday, when Co-Chair Land noted the remaining proposed
members of the group, and parties requested the Secretariat to prepare a
draft decision to forward to the high-level segment, where it was
adopted.

Final Decision:In the decision on the Multilateral Fund
ExCom (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3, amended to include names), members of the
Multilateral Fund ExCom include the following Article 5 parties: Brazil,
Burundi, Guinea, India, Mexico, Syria and Zambia; and non-Article 5
parties: Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and
the US. The decision also notes the selection of Khaled Klaly (Syria) as
Chair and Lesley Downing (Australia) as Vice-Chair of the ExCom.

OEWG: In the preparatory segment on Wednesday, Co-Chair Land
presented a draft decision on the OEWG, which the high-level segment
approved.

Final Decision: In the decision on OEWG membership (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/3,
amended to include names), the MOP names Tom Land (US) and Nadzri Yahaya
(Malaysia) as Co-Chairs of OEWG for 2006.

COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING ISSUES: Compliance and reporting issues
were considered in the preparatory segment on Wednesday, and
compliance-related decisions (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.3 and CRP.3/Add.1)
were adopted in the high-level segment on Friday.

Implementation Committee President Maas Goote (Netherlands) presented
the report of the Implementation Committee’s thirty-fifth meeting, held
from 7-9 December 2005 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ImpCom/35/10), and introduced a
compilation of reporting and compliance-related draft decisions. He
commended the high rate of data reporting for 2004 and noted issues
considered at the Implementation Committee’s meeting, including the
relevance of stockpiling to compliance, and the low rate of reporting
under Article 9 of the Protocol (research, development, public awareness
and exchange of information). He also supported review of the Protocol’s
compliance procedures, given the Implementation Committee’s increased
workload in recent years due to the growing number of Article 5 parties
progressing towards phase-out.

The EC
noted that Greece recently completed its national procedures towards
ratification of the Beijing Amendment, and Norway noted that it recently
submitted information under Article 9. Highlighting the importance of
reviewing the non-compliance procedure, Australia indicated that it had
withdrawn its draft decision on this issue (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.1), but
that it planned to continue working on the matter. The remaining draft
decisions were forwarded to the high-level segment, where they were
adopted on Friday.

On
Friday, MOP-18 President Land introduced the compliance-related draft
decisions with minor amendments. In the draft decision concerning
reports of the parties under Article 9 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.3), he noted
that Norway and Sweden would be added to the list of countries that had
provided reports.

Final Decisions: The MOP adopted 19 decisions on implementation
issues (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.3 and CRP.3/Add.1). The decisions note
non-compliance by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Chile, Ecuador, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, and Sierra Leone, and potential
non-compliance by China and Kazakhstan. Additional decisions relate to:
data and information provided by the parties; non-compliance with data
reporting requirements; a revised plan of action to return Honduras to
compliance; and a revised plan of action for the early phase-out of
methyl bromide in Uruguay.

Belgium, Poland and Portugal and control of trade with non-parties:
The EC introduced a draft decision on application of paragraph 8 of
Article 4 (control of trade with non-parties) of the Protocol with
respect to the Beijing Amendment to Belgium, Poland and Portugal (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.9).
This would allow these countries to engage in trade in controlled
substances without having ratified the Beijing Amendment. After informal
consultations, on Friday in the preparatory segment, the EC presented a
revised proposal, noting that the major change was that such exceptions
would be valid only until the next MOP. Delegates agreed to forward the
proposal to the high-level segment, where it was adopted on Friday.

Final Decision:In the decision on the application to
Belgium, Poland and Portugal of paragraph 8 of Article 4 with respect to
the Beijing amendment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.9/Rev.1), the MOP:
acknowledges that ratification processes in these countries are under
way; notes that they are in full compliance with particular articles of
the Protocol, and allows the trade-related exceptions in paragraph 8 of
Article 4 until MOP-18.

Tajikistan and trade in controlled substances: In the preparatory
segment on Friday, Georgia, on behalf of the Central and East European
Group, presented a draft decision on application to Tajikistan of
paragraph 8 of Article 4 of the Protocol with respect to the Beijing
Amendment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.24), which would allow Tajikistan to
engage in trade in controlled substances without having ratified the
Beijing Amendment. The draft decision was forwarded to the high-level
segment, where it was adopted on Friday.

Final Decision:In the decision on the application to
Tajikistan of paragraph 8 of Article 4 with respect to the Beijing
Amendment (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.24), the MOP acknowledges that its
ratification process is under way, notes that it is in full compliance
with relevant articles of the Protocol, and allows the trade-related
exceptions in paragraph 8 of Article 4 until MOP-18.

ADJUSTMENT OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: In Tuesday’s preparatory
segment, the EC introduced a proposed adjustment to the methyl bromide
phase-out schedule for Article 5 parties, which would lead to a 20%
reduction in 2008 and 2010, and a 10% reduction in 2012 (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/7).
Several Article 5 parties said they could not accept the proposed
schedule. The issue was postponed for consideration at a later time as
no consensus was reached.

DATES AND VENUES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS: In Wednesday’s preparatory
segment, Canada noted it was considering the possibility of hosting
MOP-19, which will be the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the
Protocol, and that it would report back to parties in 2006. Parties
expressed their appreciation.

With
regard to the timing of COP-8, MOP-17 President Land introduced a draft
decision (UNEP.OzL.Conv.7/3) to the high-level segment on Friday, which
the parties adopted.

Final Decision: In the decision on the timing of COP-8
(UNEP.OzL.Conv.7/3), the COP agrees to convene its eighth meeting
back-to-back with MOP-20.

On
dates and a venue for MOP-18, India offered to host MOP-18 and other
related ozone meetings during 2006 in the high-level segment on Friday.
Parties endorsed the offer by acclamation and the decision was adopted
later on Friday.

Final Decision: In the decision on MOP-18 (UNEP.OzL.Pro.17/3),
the MOP agrees to convene its eighteenth session in India with a firm
date to be announced as soon as possible.

OTHER MATTERS: Request by Cyprus to be removed from the list of
developing countries under the Montreal Protocol: On Wednesday, in
the preparatory segment, the EC introduced a submission on behalf of
Cyprus requesting the reclassification of Cyprus as a non-Article 5
party (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.17). Parties agreed to forward the draft
decision, which was adopted by the high-level segment on Friday.

Final Decision: In the decision on Cyprus (UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/CRP.17),
the MOP notes and approves the request of Cyprus to be removed from the
list of developing countries operating under Article 5 of the Montreal
Protocol, and notes that Cyprus shall assume the obligations of a
non-Article 5 party for the year 2005 and thereafter.

CLOSING PLENARY

The
closing plenary was held on Friday evening. Delegates considered the
reports of the joint meeting (UNEP/OzL.Conv.7/L.1, Add.1, Add.2, and
Add.3, and UNEP/OzL.Pro.17/L.1, Add.1, Add.2, and Add.3), and adopted
them after a number of minor amendments and statements of clarification.

COP-7
President Lo, on behalf of the Government of Senegal, thanked delegates
for their hard work, hailing the spirit of cooperation evident at the
meeting. He expressed appreciation to Senegal’s “partners,” especially
France, Switzerland, Canada and UNEP, for contributing to the success of
the meeting. He gaveled the meeting to a close at 8:54 pm.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF COP-7/MOP-17

STOCKING UP ON ODS OR DEPLETING PILES OF
GOODWILL?

The
seventh Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and the seventeenth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(COP-7/MOP-17) had a very full agenda, with many controversial issues
from the past once again rearing their heads, including those related to
essential-use exemptions, methyl bromide critical-use exemptions (CUEs),
and replenishment of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol (Multilateral Fund). With this multiplicity of issues
calling for delegates’ attention and time, the corridors and conference
rooms of Lé Méridien Conference Center buzzed, as a whole range of
issues was sent to contact groups and informal discussions, many of them
bilateral, for further negotiation. The Secretariat took great care to
arrange the timing of contact group and plenary sessions so as to ensure
the smooth progression of the meeting and to facilitate the
participation of smaller delegations in all aspects of negotiations. The
efforts of the Secretariat and delegates, and the trend towards informal
and bilateral negotiations, appears to have paid off, with parties
reaching compromises on most of the contentious issues on the agenda and
avoiding a third extraordinary MOP. However, the potential risks of
informally negotiating an increasing number of issues behind closed
doors were also apparent. In particular, it is possible that the
reliance on closed bilateral discussions could result in some delegates
feeling excluded from key negotiations, weakening the sense of
solidarity that has been so vital to the ozone regime’s success over the
past twenty years.

The
purpose of this analysis is to briefly consider key matters addressed at
COP-7/MOP-17, the issues underlying them, and the ways in which they
were addressed.

LACK OF FOCUS…OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARTER?

It is
not uncommon for delegates to deal with full COP/MOP agendas, however,
the relative importance of the various challenges facing the parties
under the ozone treaties is becoming increasingly muddled. In the early
stages of the Protocol’s implementation, while many issues had to be
addressed, the breadth of the issues on which parties focused was
relatively circumscribed. In the more recent phases of implementation,
however, there is a wider array of important and disparate issues
confronting the MOP. As Article 5 parties begin to contend with the
initial pinch of control measures for ozone-depleting substances (ODS)
and the end stages of phase-outs in non-Article 5 parties drag on, the
breadth of contentious matters has arguably stacked up.

The
scope of themes forced parties to choose their battles wisely; not
everyone could concentrate on all issues at once. This had both positive
and negative implications for individual parties and for the MOP as a
whole. On the one hand, it dispersed delegates’ attention, creating
space for parties to address contentious issues in lower-profile
bilateral discussions. Moreover, because all key players were seeking
concessions in one form or another, their relative negotiating power was
weakened. This, in comparison to the past two years in particular,
expanded opportunities for horse-trading between disparate proposals
and, in combination with the general agreement on the need to avoid a
new ExMOP, increased the probability of reaching agreement on
potentially controversial issues. On the other hand, some noted that
protection of the ozone layer and the democratic nature of the
negotiations may have been compromised in the process.

STOCKS OF CONTENTION

Yet
again, despite the dispersal of focus and the multi-faceted character of
the negotiations, the issues that rose to the top at COP-7/MOP-17 were
as predictable as the positions of the key parties and regional
negotiating blocs. Thus, while exemptions for non-Article 5 parties, ODS
stockpiles, and the always tricky question of financing proved to be
divisive, the predictability of these issues – in particular due to
lessons learned in negotiating CUNs over the past two years – meant most
parties were prepared to make the necessary compromises and tradeoffs to
move all issues forward.

The
issue of stockpiles has also gained prominence at this stage in the
Protocol’s implementation. While the issue has been a staple at past
meetings, all parties have increasingly come to realize that the issue
cuts across a wide range of crucial matters, from exemptions to illegal
trade to non-compliance. Some participants insist that ODS stockpiles
must be taken into account to minimize further harm to the ozone layer,
while others have made it difficult to openly take stockpiles into
account as required, raising confidentiality and national sovereignty as
valid justifications for concealing information on the quantity and
nature of stockpiles. Moreover, a few delegates believe that some
parties’ dogged pursuit of this issue is distracting. These participants
have contended that stockpiles are merely a necessary artifact of the
need to supply exemptions and Article 5 parties’ continued use, and that
as these needs decrease, stockpiles will diminish almost regardless of
the effort spent at this point fighting over their minimization. Those
pursuing the subject, however, view stockpiles in non-Article 5 parties
as a threat to the integrity of the Protocol, especially as the size of
stockpiles grows relative to use. These parties see stockpiles as a
potential loophole in the text of the Protocol, with important
implications for ozone layer recovery. In addition, some are concerned
about the fact that Article 5 parties are paying close attention to, and
may follow the example of, their stronger and wealthier non-Article 5
counterparts.

Complicating the matter is definitional ambiguity. Some find it
surprising that, at this advanced stage in the ozone regime, parties
have yet to define what a “stockpile” is, and which types of stockpiling
activities could constitute non-compliance with the Protocol’s
obligations. Some have highlighted that this ambiguity may have allowed
countries to interpret treaty language to suit domestic circumstances,
thereby permitting some producers, distributors and/or users to amass
relatively large quantities of ODS, at the same time that other parties
claim to have no stockpiles and yet others appear unable or unwilling to
collect all relevant information to assess the gravity of the problem at
hand. The Ozone Secretariat’s recent review of four different categories
of stockpiles reported on by parties, and of the resulting potential
compliance problems, suggests that, in the future, parties may be
impelled to take better care in accounting for their stockpiles.

Closely connected to the issue of stockpiles is the issue of exemptions,
which proved to be, once again, controversial. Despite the general
understanding that the Protocol’s efforts to protect the ozone layer
should not compromise human health, and thus that parties need to
carefully consider essential uses of ODS, some wondered at the beginning
of the week whether the US would be able to withstand a possible assault
on its nominations for CFCs for metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). Prior to
the convening of COP-7/MOP-17, the Technology and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP) received numerous letters, some from industry, which were
seen by many as a direct affront to the US essential use request. This
suggested to some that even industry had abandoned the US government
position and that the US would therefore have a difficult time holding
its position at MOP-17. The little time available to engage in
protracted negotiations on one single issue and the incentives for
parties to link disparate issues, however, made it easier than expected
for the US to negotiate the issue bilaterally. As a result, the US
delegation was able to secure a sufficient amount of exemptions to
ensure inexpensive MDIs for its population, which does not have access
to the public health systems enjoyed by many in Europe.

For
some participants, both the critical- and essential-use exemptions
sought by the EC and the US are relatively inconsequential. These
parties have pointed out that, when taken in the broader context of the
Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol, particularly when compared
to the reductions achieved through the Protocol’s implementation, and to
Article 5 non-compliance issues, the quantities exempted are not
particularly troublesome. Thus, discussion on these issues was viewed by
some participants as monotonous and of little value. Yet others noted
the symbolic importance of non-Article 5 exemption requests,
particularly because they send a message to Article 5 parties that
economic interests are sufficient to weaken commitment to achieving the
Protocol’s objectives.

The
Multilateral Fund, as expected, was again a major issue of discussion,
as it is every three years. While a special TEAP report had estimated
how much funding would be required, Article 5 countries argued for
significantly more funding than TEAP’s estimate, which they repeatedly
stressed was too conservative. Non-Article 5 countries, in contrast,
said TEAP’s estimate was excessive in some areas. The two sides engaged
in discussions throughout the week, and remained more than US$100
million apart on a total funding amount for replenishment until late in
the week. In a development that was surprising to some, however, parties
came to a quick agreement on Friday morning, after both sides
compromised to arrive at a number somewhere in the middle. In his
presentation of the group’s results to plenary, the Co-Chair noted the
positive atmosphere in the group, and suggested that perhaps this
reflected the learning of the process over time.

Lastly, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the drafters of the
Protocol were not able to anticipate the difficulties Article 5 parties
would face during the phase-down of ODS use. The exemptions provided for
non-Article 5 parties are essentially a “pressure valve” that has
allowed these parties to continue ODS uses most difficult to phase out.
In contrast, in Article 5 parties, the need for exemptions is a surprise
because the implications of Article 5 parties’ low baselines during
phase-down, rather than at phase-out, were not considered when drafting
the Protocol. Consequently, unlike many of the challenges facing
non-Article 5 parties, those facing Article 5 parties are difficult to
address under the Protocol.

HOW TO WHITTLE AWAY THE PILE OF ISSUES:
RESOLVING MATTERS BILATERALLY

Parties at COP-7/MOP-17 seemed keen on resolving difficult issues in
contact groups and in informal and bilateral sessions to avoid both
protracted plenary discussions and the impasses that have, in the past,
led to two extraordinary MOPs (ExMOPs). This general trend towards
relying on bilateral, and often confidential, consultations to resolve
contentious issues generated the impression among some that the meeting
was rather relaxed. However, those in the thick of the bilateral
discussions found the meeting quite intense.

Some
participants suggested that this trend in negotiating practice was more
efficient, allowing key players to address the major issues in a focused
and succinct manner without the unending and sometimes diverted
discussions of plenary negotiations. Others mused that even if this
approach could be credited with averting another ExMOP, excluding
interested parties from the discussions was a large price to pay, and
this change could ultimately threaten to undermine the multilateral and
democratic nature of the process. Still others added that, while this
style could be seen as an alteration when compared to the standard
formal practice, in reality decisions have ultimately always been made
in what amount to confidential bilaterals.

CONCLUSION

In
highlighting that 2005 is the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of
the Vienna Convention, Executive Secretary Marco González also reminded
delegates that the final 20% of any global cooperative effort is often
the hardest. The ultimate compromise reached in Dakar on CUEs was only
possible, according to some delegates, because both the EC and the US
were seeking mutual concessions on a range of issues, including CUEs,
essential uses, and ratification of the Beijing Amendment by the EC
member states. This suggests that the dispersal of attention was, as far
as the efficiency and outcomes of the meeting are concerned, quite
positive. Despite the numerous challenges that arose at COP-7/MOP-17,
parties were able to work constructively and cooperatively to achieve
their short-term goals. However, the implications of the decisions
reached, and the processes used to arrive at them at the joint meeting,
remain to be seen, in particular for the longer-term mission of
protecting the ozone layer.

Ultimately, the apparent discrepancy between those participants focused
primarily on the integrity of the Protocol, and those shielding
sovereignty and domestic regulatory discretion, may drain precious
reserves of goodwill. Although the decades-long cooperation of the
parties to the ozone treaties has resulted in a willingness to work
together, some are worried that the many disagreements based on
fundamental differences of opinion will, in the coming years, deplete
the stockpiles of goodwill more swiftly than those of controlled ODS.
Others predict that the former will only grow, as Article 5 parties and
a number of non-Article 5 parties renew their commitment to protect the
ozone layer.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT: The International
Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) to adopt the completed
Strategic Approach for International Chemicals Management (SAICM) will
be held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 4-6 February 2006,
immediately before the 9th Special Session of UNEP Governing Council and
Global Ministerial Environment Forum. For more information, contact:
UNEP Chemicals; tel: +41-22-917-8191; fax: +41-22-797-3460; e-mail:
chemicals@unep.ch; internet:
http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/

NINTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UNEP GC/GMEF: The ninth special session
of UNEPï¿½s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum will be
held from 7-9 February 2006, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The major
agenda items for UNEP GCSS-9/GMEF are energy and environment, and
chemicals management. For more information, contact: Beverly Miller,
Secretary for UNEP Governing Council; tel: +254-2-623-431; fax:
+254-2-623-929; e-mail:
beverly.miller@unep.org; internet:
http://www.unep.org

FIFTH SESSION OF THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE BASEL CONVENTION:
OEWG-5 will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 3-7 April 2006. For
more information, contact: Secretariat of the Basel Convention; tel:
+41-22-917-8218; fax: +41-22-797-3454; e-mail:
sbc@unep.ch;
internet:
http://www.basel.int

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
This meeting is tentatively planned for 19-21 April or 25-27 April 2006,
in a location yet to be determined. For more information, contact: Rudie
Bourgeois, IPCC Secretariat; tel: +41-22-730-8208/84; fax:
+41-22-730-8025/13; e-mail:
IPCC-Sec@wmo.int; internet:
http://www.ipcc.ch

FOURTEENTH SESSION OF THE UN COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
CSD-14 will begin the second cycle of the Commissionï¿½s new work
programme, from 1-12 May 2006, at UN headquarters in New York. The
meeting will review progress on atmosphere/air pollution, climate
change, energy and industrial development. For more information,
contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development; tel: +1-212-963-8102;
fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail:
dsd@un.org;
internet:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/index.html

SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON
PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS: POPs COP-2 is scheduled for 1-5 May
2006, in Geneva, Switzerland. For more information, contact: Secretariat
of the Stockholm Convention; tel: +41-22-917-8191; fax: +41-22-797-3460;
e-mail:
ssc@pops.int; internet:
http://www.pops.int

TWENTY-FIFTH OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL
PROTOCOL: This meeting is tentatively scheduled for the first week
of July 2006, in Montreal, Canada. For more information, contact: Ozone
Secretariat; tel: +254-2-62-3851; fax: +254-2-62-4691; e-mail:
ozoneinfo@unep.org; internet:
http://www.unep.org/ozone

EIGHTEENTH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: MOP-18
is scheduled to take place in late 2006. India has offered to host the
meeting, although the location is still to be confirmed. For more
information, contact: Ozone Secretariat; tel: +254-2-62-3851; fax:
+254-2-62-4691; e-mail:
ozoneinfo@unep.org; internet:
http://www.unep.org/ozone

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by Karen Alvarenga, Ph.D., Ingrid
Barnsley, Paula Barrios, Amber Moreen, and Noelle Eckley
Selin. The Digital Editor is Leila Mead. The Editor is
Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston
James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the
Government of the United States of America (through the
Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of
Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through
the Department for International Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of
Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment
- BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian
Ministry of Environment. General Support for the Bulletin
during 2005 is provided by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management, the Ministry of
Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Sweden, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Ministry of Environment and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Swan
International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through
the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES)
and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research
Institute - GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by
the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and
the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the
translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into
Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of Environment of
Spain. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications with appropriate academic
citation. For information on the Bulletin, including
requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director
of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.